Yam, Kit L. (ed.). The Wiley encyclopedia of packaging technology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

sterilization. Polyvinyl chloride shows a reaction to radia-

tion at low levels by turning amber and eluting gas. The

signiﬁcant change in mechanical properties in PVC occurs

at higher energy doses, around 100 Mrad (11).

In contrast, polyester ﬁlms show change due to expo-

sure by increasing tensile strength (12). The tensile

strength increase is dose-dependent over 0–5 Mrad and

then begins to reduce with increased exposure. Even at

12.5 Mrad the tensile strength of the sample is greater

than the original, untreated sample as shown in Figure 5.

This is a desirable property change in applications where

tensile strength is desirable. Polyester tennis strings

produced by a company named Gamma Gut are dosed by

gamma radiation to increase their tensile strength, which

is a quality necessary for tennis strings. The company

even identiﬁes the process in the corporate name.

In addition to the mechanical properties changing, the

barrier properties of a material are also at risk. PETG, PP,

and nylon show signiﬁcant loss of water-vapor-barrier

qualities when exposed to sterilizing doses of radiation.

These effects have been demonstrated to be dose-depen-

dent, so the greater the dose, the more pronounced the

effect (13). It is speculated that the effect comes from the

restructuring of the polymer chains, allowing more area

for water molecule transport. Table 5 shows the WVTR

values of various packaging ﬁlms at different energy

doses.

The stabilization of these polymers to the radiation

levels seen in sterilization cycles is being accomplished by

the use of various additives. The additives are designed

to either react with the energy before it damages the

material or absorb the energy before it energizes the

material. These additives are specially formulated for

the particular application because their compatibility

with a product is a key consideration. PVC is modiﬁed

with lead carbonate or organic tin compounds, and this

change reduces the discoloration in the material (14).

Effects of Package. The effects on package integrity are

secondary to the effects of material integrity. There is no

elevated temperature to soften plastics, and there is no

evacuation cycle to stress the package seals. The embrit-

tlement of a material is the key issue because if a package

material is ﬂexed and cracks, the sterile integrity of the

package is compromised and the product is viewed as

contaminated and unusable. Stresses encountered during

distribution take on greater importance when materials

have become brittle, so effective distribution testing is

prudent.

Shelf Life of Device Packages. The shelf life of a device

package is expressed as the length of time the package will

provide a sterile barrier. The shelf life has traditionally

been deﬁned as only an event-related process where

events such as rough handling contribute to premature

aging of the package. Current research has indicated that

time is also a factor in device shelf life. There has been

evidence to suggest that material changes may occur

during poststerilization storage. These changes are the

same as those that occur immediately after sterilization

but seemingly increase over time. One study has shown

that aged EVA heatseals on porous packages sterilized by

EtO have signiﬁcantly lower seal strengths than the same

packages immediately after sterilization (15). Other ob-

served effects are discoloration and increasing brittleness

of materials sterilized by radiation. These few observa-

tions make a case for increasing attention on poststorage

testing of the packages so that more can be learned about

the impact of sterilization method on shelf life (see also

Shelf life).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. F. Yambrach, Med. Device Diagn. Indust. 28(1), 134 (2006).

2. C. Henke, Med. Device Diagn. Indust. 14(12), 41 (1992).

3. A. F. Booth, Med. Device Diagn. Indust. 17(2), 64 (1995).

Figure 5. Tensile strengths of packaging ﬁlms after exposure to

low-level radiation.

Table 5. Effects of Radiation on the WVTR of Packaging

Materials Tested [g/(100 in.

24 h) at 100 1F, 90% rh]

Materials (Mrad) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

PETG 1.42 1.52 1.57 1.76 1.73

PET/PE 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.55 0.57

PP 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.24

OPP 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.37

PE 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.13

PET 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.28

Nylon/PE 0.26 0.29 0.34 0.37 0.37

858 PACKAGE-INTEGRITY IN STERILE DISPOSABLE HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS

4. Industrial Sterilization, Duke University Press, Durham,

NC, 1973; B-D International Industrial Sterilization Sympo-

sium, 1972 Amsterdam, Netherlands.

5. R. R. Reicht and D. J. Burgess, Med. Device Diagn. Indust.

13(1), 124 (1991).

6. C. Marotta, Med. Device Diagn. Indust. 6(2), 27 (1984).

7. G. G. Giddings, ‘‘Irradiation of Packaging Materials and

Prepackaged Foods’’ in Proceedings from the 4th International

Conference on Packaging, September 1985.

8. J. W. Barnard, Med. Device Technol. (1991).

9. J. N. Aaronson and S. V. Nablo, ‘‘The Application of Electron

Sterilization for Devices and Containers,’’ paper presented

at TAPPI Polymers, Laminations and Coatings Conference,

1986.

10. J. J. Killoran, Radiat. Res. Rev. 3, 369–388 (1972).

11. W. E. Skeins, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 15, 47–57 (1980).

12. V. Pungthong, Mechanical Properties of Polymeric Packaging

Films After Radiation Sterilization, M.S. thesis, Rochester

Institute of Technology, 1990.

13. R. L. A. Vas, Effects of Low Level Radiation on WVTR of

Plastic Packaging Films, M.S. thesis, Rochester Institute of

Technology, 1989.

14. M. Foure and P. Rakita, Med. Device Diagn. Indust. 5(12), 33

(1983).

15. A. T. Cook, The Effect of Accelerated Aging on Peelable

Medical Product Heatseals, M.S. thesis, Rochester Institute

of Technology, 1994.

PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

LAURA BIX

JAVIER DE LA FUENTE

RAGHAV PRASHANT SUNDAR

HUGH LOCKHART

School of Packaging, Michigan

State University, East Lansing,

Michigan

INTRODUCTION

Packaging is ubiquitous, yet invisible to many who use it.

It is present in almost all environments and facets of

modern day life, though few people give it any purposeful

thought. Hospitals, military outposts, construction sites,

industrial manufacturing facilities, retail outlets, and

restaurants (to name a few) all have personnel that

interface with packaging. It permeates our homes, busi-

nesses, churches, and schools and utilizes nearly every

material known, taking on many different forms and

functions.

It is challenging, in a single chapter, to discuss effective

package design in great detail due to the myriad of

products in need of packaging and complexity of stake-

holder desires. However, there are certain basic considera-

tions that designers should contemplate, regardless of

the product to be packaged or the packaging form to be

employed.

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON PACKAGING

Effective designers consider multiple inputs and desires

from varying stakeholders (see Figure 1), throughout

the life cycle of a package (from ingredients through

disposal), though many times these stakeholders don’t

even realize that their expectations for a product are

achieved by thoughtful package design.

Converters and ﬁllers expect that packages will be easy

to produce, ﬁll, process, evaluate, handle, ship, store, and

track. The idea is to maximize production efﬁciencies (line

speeds, cube efﬁciencies, inventory control, and the like)

without imposing unnecessary burden on workers. Both

groups wish for products and packages that will satisfy

downstream customers’ (particularly sellers and end con-

sumers—see Figure 1) wants and desires, creating the

opportunity for more orders and more proﬁt. Perhaps one

of the greatest motivators of package design decisions,

particularly for ﬁllers, is the need to effectively brand

their products. With the fragmentation of traditional

media sources and the advent of technologies like satellite

radio and TiVo

, which allow consumers to ﬁlter adver-

tisements, packaging takes on a more prominent role in

attracting and retaining consumers. Distinguishing fea-

tures such as logos, wordmarks, colors, and functionality

are vital parts of this effort, and packaging is increasingly

seen as a tool for adding value.

A variety of sellers (retailers, internet businesses,

hospitals, pharmacies, restaurants, etc.) have many ex-

pectations as well. They expect affordable products that

will arrive in a pristine, genuine, shelf-ready condition

with maximum shelf life and features that make tamper-

ing evident. For many, packaging is part of loss prevention

programs which are meant to deter and detect theft, a

noted and costly problem (1). Certain sellers, like hospitals

and other healthcare facilities, desire packages that

readily identify contents when seconds count. They place

emphasis on the directions, and in some cases warnings;

designs that facilitate the safe and effective use of the

contents within are a priority. Other sellers (retailers)

still emphasize the importance of products that are easily

identiﬁed, but with the purpose of attracting consumers

for sale. Sellers also desire packages that are easily

integrated into their systems which track inventory, so

that billing, ordering, and, occasionally, recall, are efﬁ-

cient and cost-effective.

End consumers want to be able to easily identify a

safe and affordable product that has arrived intact with

maximum shelf life remaining. They prefer things that

are easily opened, dispensed, and stored and express

frustration when designers do not consider their needs.

With increasing frequency, they express concerns regard-

ing the sustainability of packaged goods. Many end-users

desire products that have considered the social, economic,

and ecological impact of design choices on the world, with

designs that have zero or positive impacts being preferred.

To further complicate the considerations, end-users come

with preconceived notions about what packaging is appro-

priate for a given product. For instance, Americans were

very slow to embrace the concept of wine in anything but a

glass bottle with a cork until recently, and they are just

PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 859

beginning to accept bag-in-box systems and canned wine.

These conceptions are ﬁltered through a cultural lens, so

as the marketplace becomes more global in nature, so, too,

does understanding how a design will be perceived and

embraced by the end-user. The rising globality of the

marketplace further complicates design decisions, as the

varying systems for distribution, storage, and handling

are not standardized and large distances, coupled with

multiple hand-offs, allow for problems with product

security.

It is for this reason that, with increasing frequency,

manufacturers, regulators, and standards organizations

are integrating automatic identiﬁcation (auto-ID) and

authentication technologies into package designs. Fre-

quently, technologies like bar codes and radio-frequency

identiﬁcation (RFID) are being included in package

systems in an attempt to provide a complete history

regarding the product’s origin, location, and conditions of

handling. Overt, covert, and forensic technologies are

commonly imbedded into packaging components in order

to deter and detect illicit activities (counterfeiting, up-

labeling, etc.) as well as authenticate genuine product.

Finally, at the very end of the stream are those that

deal with the issues of disposal, the end-of-life managers

(see Figure 1). They, too, have desires for packaging.

Packaging can end its life by being reused, either in the

same fashion as it was used to begin with (a returnable,

reﬁllable bottle) or in a new way (a bottle that becomes

a vase). Packages that are to be reused in the same way

must be capable of withstanding the processing necessary

to ensure that they are as safe and effective the second

time around as they were the ﬁrst. Those that are reused

for different purposes must suggest to the end-user (either

subtly or directly) that reuse of this item is an attractive

option.

A number of systems exist where packaging is pro-

cessed at the end of its life to become something else.

Recycling reprocesses the materials present into new

forms. Composting breaks the materials down into basic

components. Incineration captures the energy released as

the package is burned. Finally, packages may end up in

the solid waste stream, where they are land-ﬁlled.

Regardless of the process employed, end-of-life man-

agers desire package designs that can easily and safely

be integrated into existing systems for the collection and

processing of the materials. Designs must effectively

utilize appropriate disposal mechanisms and convey to

both the end-user and the disposal facility any necessary

steps to be taken (e.g., the classiﬁcation of the materials

and separation of components).

Clearly, the considerations and decisions that astute

packaging designers regard are vast, and different pro-

ducts and stakeholders require emphasis on varying

aspects of the design.

THE LOCKHART PACKAGING MATRIX

The Lockhart Packaging Matrix is a tool that allows

designers to consider numerous design decisions and

Figure 1. Packaging supply chain stakeholders.

860 PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

stakeholder perspectives in an organized fashion (2). It

considers packaging to be a socioeconomic discipline that

must perform three main functions—protection, utility,

and communication (see Figure 2)—in three environ-

ments: the physical, ecospheric, and human (see Figure 3).

These functions and environments frequently exert their

effects simultaneously, though the matrix separates them

for ease of understanding.

When all functions and environments are considered,

packaging is not just a means to protect or contain the

product, but also has the potential to impact the decisions

and lives of those interfacing with it throughout the chain

(see Figure 1). The Lockhart matrix presents, visually, a

way to manage the intersections of function and environ-

ment that occur (see Figure 4).

The challenge to designers when using the matrix is

to simultaneously consider all nine intersections of the

matrix from the perspectives of the many, varying mem-

bers of the supply chain (see Figure 1); optimal decisions

will maximize all intersections without suboptimizing

others. For instance, consider a package that contains a

prescription drug. By focusing solely on the category of

human/protection, a child-resistant container that is im-

pervious to all children might be created. The system is

suboptimized, however, if this comes at the cost of any

senior being able to access their medications; suboptimi-

zation of the human/utility interface of the matrix (see

Figure 4).

HISTORICAL EMPHASIS OF PACKAGING SCIENCE

Because packaging is a ﬂedgling discipline, not all areas

of the matrix have received the same level of scientiﬁc

Figure 2. The functions that packaging must

perform.

Figure 3. The environments in which functions

must be performed.

PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 861

investigation. Consider the level of science that has

been applied across the three environments (ecosphere,

physical, and human; see Figure 4). The ecospheric

environment and the physical environment each have a

considerable history of scientiﬁc exploration which has

resulted in standardized test methodologies, predictive

models, and design innovations.

In the ecospheric environment, the role of packaging

as a barrier to deterioration (from air, water, light,

temperature, and living organisms) is well known.

Material and packaging innovations in this arena have

seen tremendous growth and development, and they

range from the simple to complex. Society has been the

benefactor of developments such as: amber glass and

canning; the creation of polymers that allow for less

breakage and lighter packages than glass or metal; the

incorporation of additives that extend the shelf life of

products by scavenging oxygen or killing microbes;

and the emerging introduction of nanocomposites, to

name a few.

Science was, and continues to be, used to catalyze and

inform these innovations. Fickian models can be used to

explain the transfer of molecules through barrier sys-

tems, and sorption moisture isotherms characterize pro-

duct delicacies; this information can be coupled to predict

and understand the resultant shelf life of products

through the use of multiple test standards (see Shelf

life, Testing, Permeation, and Leakage). Solubility para-

meters can be calculated to predict the likelihood of

product/package interaction. ‘‘Active packaging’’ (3) ma-

nipulates and reacts to the internal and external envir-

onment to achieve a desired goal for the product

(generally extension of shelf life). Chemical engineers

and material scientists have worked to understand the

‘‘weak links’’ that can be manipulated in material che-

mistries in order to create polymers that are biodegrad-

able or readily compostable.

Like the ecosphere, the physical environment has

been the benefactor of attentive scientists and engineers

during the years that packaging has been formally

studied. Accelerometers that can ‘‘map’’ physical condi-

tions and shock indicators that trigger a warning of

potential damage have been developed to provide informa-

tion to designers and end-consumers. Testing agencies

and research teams are capable of estimating component

fragility so that product and package design can be

manipulated to mitigate the probability of damage.

This information can be coupled with damage boundary

curves and cushion curves in order to help designers

maximize protection and minimize cost. All of these

approaches rely on sophisticated equipment and test

standards (see Distribution Hazard Measurement, Logis-

tical/Distribution Packaging) that have been put in place

over the years.

Obviously, packaging research has optimized perfor-

mance by providing science that garners insights into

the interactions between product and package when the

ecospheric and physical environments are considered.

However, the lack of this same degree of attention and

quantiﬁcation of the human environment represents a

real opportunity for packaging designers, particularly as

the global population ages.

We submit that optimal designs consider the product

and the user (all three environments; see Figure 4) from

all stakeholder perspectives (see Figure 1). This is not the

traditional approach to design, which generally centers

on either the product or user as the focus of the decision

making process.

PRODUCT-CENTERED DESIGN (PCD) VERSUS

USER-CENTERED DESIGN (UCD)

In a product-centered design (PCD) process, designers

focus ﬁrst on the technological development of the package

while considering product and production requirements,

after which point they address user functionality. The

traditional approach to packaging design has been largely

PCD, with concerns about the ability to efﬁciently ﬁll,

protect, and distribute products driving most design

decisions.

By contrast, a user-centered design (UCD) process ﬁrst

considers the needs and wants of the user. The users’

functional capabilities determine which product features

are satisfactory. For instance, if it is known that a user can

only exert a certain force, any design that requires a force

beyond that limit will be disallowed from consideration.

We suggest that truly optimal designs consider all

viewpoints, a combination of PCD and UCD processes.

During the entire process the design team must attempt to

balance requirements of the three environments (physical,

ecospheric, and human) and the three functions (protec-

tion, utility, and communication) described earlier from

varying stakeholder perspectives (see Figure 1–4). Though

all intersections of the matrix may not be given equal

credence for all products and stakeholders, all are con-

sidered and, if under- or disregarded, the decision to do so

is deliberate.

Figure 4. The Lockhart packaging matrix.

862 PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT—

CONSIDERING ALL PERSPECTIVES

A packaging project is quite unique in the sense that it

encompasses both the design of three-dimensional compo-

nents and the design of two-dimensional elements to

perform the functions of protection, utility, and commu-

nication in the varying environments. Usually, the end

result takes the form of a multicomponent system that

includes primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging.

Because of its interdisciplinary nature, the development

process affects all functions in an organization. Research,

sales, ﬁnance, legal, and the general management are

involved, but of particular importance are the functions

of marketing, design, and manufacturing because of their

continuous involvement along the entire process. It is for

these reasons that it is assumed that the design team will

have representatives from the latter areas.

There are many design and development processes

described in the literature (4–6). Even though some of

them do not speciﬁcally consider the design of packages,

from a broad perspective they all have conceptual simila-

rities. Regardless of the type of packaging system, a

design project has four typical stages: research, design,

development, and manufacturing. We present a six-phase,

comprehensive methodology adapted from Ulrich and

Eppinger (5) for developing packaging systems (see

Figure 5).

The output of each phase is evaluated to determine

what design features move forward in the process.

Evaluations take the form of testing (mechanical and

chemical), user assessment, and/or internal assessment.

The process is iterative and usually bidirectional, mean-

ing that information gathered in later phases can be used

to modify and feed early stages (see Figure 5). The process’

phases are deﬁned in terms of the state of the packaging

system being developed. They are as follows:

1. Planning

2. Concept design

3. System design

4. Speciﬁcation

5. Reﬁnement

6. Production

1. Planning. The objective of the planning phase is

to formulate a mission statement or design brief that

includes identiﬁcation of target segments, businesses

goals, stakeholders (see Figure 1), assumptions, and both

product-centered and user-centered restrictions. The in-

puts of this phase take into account the corporate strat-

egy, an assessment of available technology, and market

objectives.

2. Concept Design. During the concept design stage,

several packaging concepts are generated and evaluated,

and one or more are selected for additional development

and testing. A concept is a description of shapes, functions,

and features which are intended to fulﬁll the expectations

generated, as expressed in the design brief. Concept

ideation is a complex task that implies several intercon-

nected activities which include:

a. Identifying Product and User Needs and Requirements.

The ﬁrst activity is directed at recording the varying

requirements, needs, and desires for the package system

and communicating these to the development team and

members of the organization. The packaging matrix (see

Figure 4) can be used extensively in understanding and

prioritizing these requirements. The output of this step is

a hierarchical list of need statements with importance

weightings.

Activities carried out at this point include:

. Identiﬁcation of stakeholder needs

. Identiﬁcation of product requirements

. Data gathering from stakeholders and product

. Prioritization of the stakeholder needs and product

requirements

. Development of design parameters based on collected

data

. Interpretation of raw data in terms of stakeholder

needs and product requirements.

It is very important to identify the requirements of

the product and the varying stakeholders. Be aware that

product and stakeholder requirements may be juxtaposed

and that varying stakeholders are likely to place emphasis

on differing sections of the packaging matrix. As such,

prioritization is a crucial piece of the process.

Figure 5. A generic packaging design and development process.

(Adapted from Ref. (5).)

PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 863

To illustrate this, consider a prescription drug. Product

protection requirements may dictate the use of an opaque

or amber package (ecospheric/protection), but manufac-

turing may desire a clear material so that a vision

system can verify the presence of the pill in the blister

cavity (physical/utility). Similarly, stakeholders may have

different desires. Pharmacists have unique requirements

in terms of cost, storage, labeling, and ﬁlling operations,

but those needs may be very different from those of the

end-users.

Once the product requirements (physical and eco-

spheric) and the stakeholders’ needs and requirements

(human) have been identiﬁed, the team must gather data

in order to inform the design of the package. Product-

driven data may include: isotherms; chemical assays

that look at sensitivities; stability studies; fragility data;

characterization of the distribution environment (relative

humidity levels, typical temperatures, as well as shocks

and vibrations likely to be encountered); and limitations

imposed by the manufacturing process and distribution

systems. End-user insights may include data collected

from interviews, focus groups, ethnography, and use;

end-users may also be characterized by demographics,

psychographics, and anthropometrics, as well as in terms

of their physical capabilities (strength, range of motion,

visual acuity, etc.).

The next step is to design parameters from the raw

data. At this point in the process, the parameters are

described in terms of what the packaging has to do, as

opposed to prescriptive solutions. Design parameters are

then organized into a hierarchy and grouped in primary,

secondary, and even tertiary priorities. To establish the

relative importance of the parameters, the design team

can rely on its own knowledge about the user and

product; they can overpackage, or they can conduct fact-

ﬁnding to gather further information. There is a natural

tradeoff between the approaches: cost, speed, and accu-

racy. Relying on internal knowledge can aid in speed to

market and be cost effective, but can be detrimental in

terms of accuracy. Overpackaging, or overdelivering, can

also aid in speed to market, but can be costly in the long

term; mining more data to inform decisions can slow the

process, but can result in a more informed, cost-effective

solution.

b. Setting Target Speciﬁcations. Prioritized design para-

meters are then translated into target speciﬁcations.

These are measurable and precise descriptions of what

the packaging has to do. Target speciﬁcations represent

goals that, later in the process, can be readjusted in the

event of unforeseen constraints (i.e., technological, eco-

nomic, etc.). The process of establishing speciﬁcations

involves the selection of metrics, collection of competitive

benchmarking data, and the setup of ideal and acceptable

target values.

To illustrate this concept, consider a product that has

a design parameter indicating it to be moisture-sensitive.

In this step, the parameter is translated into a target

speciﬁcation, a speciﬁc requirement for the maximum

allowable rate of moisture vapor transmission. The same

type of transition occurs with design parameters that

relate to user needs. The design parameter ‘‘easy opening’’

can be translated into target speciﬁcations relating to

package diameter, maximum allowable torque, and coefﬁ-

cients of friction between cap and hand, or the team could

just decide a percentage of opening success among the

target population.

c. Concept Generation. Target speciﬁcations are syn-

thesized into a set of packaging concepts from which the

team will make a ﬁnal selection. The basic idea is to

exhaustively explore design solutions in order to reduce

the probability of ﬁnding a better alternative late in the

development process or, even worse, having a competitor

ﬁnd one.

d. Concept Selection. The design team will use some

kind of method for selecting concepts. The approach to

concept selection can be either intuitive or structured and

can include:

. An External Decision. A customer or client makes

the selection.

. Product Champion. A member of the team makes a

selection based on personal preference.

. Intuition. A concept is selected by its feel.

. Multivoting. Team members vote for multiple de-

signs (i.e., ‘‘vote for your top 3’’). Each round, a

pre-determined number of designs are forwarded

for more voting, and votes are cast again (‘‘vote for

your top 2’’). This process continues until the de-

sign(s) is chosen.

. Pros and Cons. The team chooses a concept based on

a list of strengths and weaknesses of each concept.

. Prototype and Test. The team builds and test proto-

types of each concept and makes a selection based

upon test data.

. Decision

Matrices. The team

evaluates each concept

with respect to a set of selection criteria. Criteria are

based on previously discussed design priorities.

More structured methods provide objectivity throughout

the concept design phase and help to evaluate concepts

scientiﬁcally. Concepts are examined scientiﬁcally to de-

termine if they meet or exceed the needs and require-

ments of the product and varying stakeholders and the

selection is made based on objective results. New concepts

are also evaluated and benchmarked against the existing

competition.

e. Concept Testing. Selected concepts are evaluated by

potential users in the target market and subjected to

appropriate laboratory testing. These activities involve:

1. Deﬁning the purpose of the test: the team needs to

deﬁne what questions will be answered with the

testing.

2. Selecting test conditions:

. In the case of user focused testing, it is assumed

that a sample population will reﬂect the target

864 PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

population. Testing can be conducted in a

variety of ways, including ethnographic research,

surveys, face-to-face interviews, telephone inter-

views, postal or electronic mail, and over the inter-

net. Concepts can be communicated in many

ways with different levels of description. These

include: verbal description, sketches, photos, vi-

deos, physical appearance models, and working

prototypes.

. In the case of pilot scale manufacturing, it is

assumed that incoming lots will reﬂect the varia-

bility of materials, line speeds, and other manu-

facturing parameters.

. In the case of stability testing, it is assumed

that conditions of test will be carefully chosen to

reﬂect, or accelerate, appropriate conditions of

storage and use.

. As with the other testing, physical testing will be

purposefully constructed so that conditions accu-

rately reﬂect handling and storage throughout

distribution channels.

3. Measurement of responses.

4. Analysis, interpretation of results, and selection of

a ﬁnal concept.

f. Setting Final Speciﬁcations. Based on the ﬁnal con-

cept, the team will be able to conﬁrm or revise speciﬁca-

tions. This is done by conducting a terminal evaluation

which, again, considers the broad spectrum of stakeholder

requirements with a heavy emphasis on technological

restrictions and manufacturing costs. During this phase,

the design team must perform a balancing act that con-

siders the myriad of requirements from the varying user

perspectives to arrive at the optimal package design for

the entire system. As such, the ﬁnal speciﬁcation process

calls for an active involvement of team members repre-

senting marketing, design, and manufacturing functions

of the organization.

3. System Design. This phase includes the deﬁnition of

all packaging system components and parts. The outcome

includes a geometric layout of the system, functional

speciﬁcations for each part, and a process ﬂow diagram

for the production and packaging lines.

4. Speciﬁcation. The output of this phase is the control

documentation for the entire packaging system, as ap-

proved by the respective areas (i.e., structural, graphics,

scheduling, manufacturing, marketing, customer service,

the ﬁller, etc.). For the graphic elements of the system,

this phase implies the preparation of the ﬁnal art work.

There are a multitude of possibilities, but it could include

adequate color separation for the printing system chosen,

photography at sufﬁcient resolution, die lines, overprints,

illustrations, fonts, code bars, ﬁnal identiﬁcation suppli-

ers for components and substrates, speciﬁcations for

spot ultraviolet coating (varnish or lacquer), embossing/

debossing, foil stamping, matt/glossy ﬁnish, and so on. For

the structural parts of the system, speciﬁcations include

detailed descriptions of geometry, tolerances, materials,

and manufacturing processes of all components as well as

production tooling. It also identiﬁes any standard parts to

be acquired from suppliers.

5. Reﬁnement. The reﬁnement phase involves the eva-

luation of preproduction versions of all packaging system

parts and the ﬁnal assembly. Typically, two types of

prototypes are used here: alpha and beta. Alpha proto-

types are early versions of the packaging system; they

have the same geometry and material properties as

intended for the production version parts, but they may

or may not be fabricated using the actual production

process. Alpha prototypes are used to determine if the

design will work as intended, fullﬁlling key stakeholder’s

needs and requirements. Beta prototypes are built with

parts produced with the intended manufacturing pro-

cesses, but their assembly might not be performed using

the ﬁnal assembling process. Beta prototypes are evalu-

ated by the team and by different stakeholders to identify

whether engineering changes are needed for the ﬁnal

packaging system.

6. Production. During this phase, the packaging system

is produced on the ﬁnal packaging line using actual

packaging components and parts. Packaged products are

evaluated using carefully constructed sampling plans to

determine the process’ ability to produce within speciﬁed

tolerances and to adjust the parameters of manufacture.

There is a gradual transition to full blown production. At

some point during this phase the ﬁnal packaged product is

launched and distributed.

CONCLUSIONS

Seller

and end-user trial,

satisfaction, and repeat pur-

chase may be a direct function of packaging for many

consumer non-durables and perhaps for some durables as

well. The three functions of packaging (protection, com-

munication, and utility) play a key role in achieving

success.

Packaging that fails to fully protect the product has the

potential to result in excess damage and waste, dimin-

ished shelf life, and loss of ﬂavor or efﬁcacy. Problems

associated with insufﬁcient protection are likely to lead to

customer dissatisfaction and negative word-of-mouth ad-

vertising. Likewise, packaging that fails to communicate

its marketing positioning, to differentiate from its compe-

titors, and to connect emotionally with consumers will

result negatively on the bottom line. Packaging that does

not provide the expected utility will put off consumers.

The product/package system must generate satisfaction,

and poorly designed packages have the potential fail to

attract sales and discourage repeat purchase.

It is important that designers recognize the power of a

comprehensive, deliberate approach to package design.

This chapter presents a six-step approach that can be used

to design packaging and the packaging matrix, a tool for

prioritizing the myriad of considerations and perspectives

that must be considered.

PACKAGING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 865

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. R. Koh, E. Schuster, and N. Lam, ‘‘Prediction, Detection, and

Proof: An Integrated Auto-ID Solution to Retail Theft,’’ MIT

Auto ID Center white paper, 2003.

2. H. E. Lockhart, ‘‘A Paradigm for Packaging,’’ Packaging

Technol. Sci. 10, 237–252 (1997).

3. T. P. Labuza and W. M. Breene, ‘‘Applications of Active Packa-

ging for Improvement of Shelf-Life and Nutritional Quality

of Fresh and Extended Shelf-Life Foods,’’ J. Food Processing

Preserv. 13(1), 1–69 (1989).

4. L. Roth, ‘‘The Making of a Designer: Ideas and Techniques’’ in

Packaging Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990,

pp. 33–35.

5. K. T. Ulrich and S. D. Eppinger, Development Processes and

Organizations,’’ in Product Design and Development, Tata

McGraw-Hill Companies, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 187–208.

6. B. Stewart, The Packaging Designer ’s Toolbox’’ in Packaging

Design, Laurence King Publishing, London, 2007, pp. 59–92.